HU HOME l CETLA HOME l TLT HOME l SITEMAP
sitemap sitemap
Teaching Learning Technology Resources
News Smart Room Resources About Us Reports
Tech Suport Simulation Known Issues Certification Policies Contacts
 

clock

 

A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
WITH TECHNOLOGY

TEACHING, LEARNING, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Howard University

Revised February 22, 2005
Click here for the Status Report November 16, 2006

 

 

 

A Strategic Framework for Teaching and Learning with Technology was submitted by the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Committee to Provost Dr. Richard English on December 1, 2004 and revised on February 22, 2005.

CONTENTS  

INTRODUCTION

MISSION

CORE VALUES

VISION

PROCESS

CHRONOLOGY

GOALS

•         Hardware

•         Connectivity

•         Digital Content

•         Professional Development

CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

Strategic Framework for Action II

Sample Criteria for Student Laptop Policies

Teaching, Learning, and Technology Committee

WORKS CITED

INTRODUCTION

Today technology plays a vital role in academe.  It is no longer just the backbone of administration; it is rapidly becoming the lifeblood of education, enabling activities such as Internet research, collaboration, training simulations, and virtual field trips.   Consequently, instructional technology has become essential to Howard University’s mission of providing “an educational experience of exceptional quality” (HU Mission).  

In 1996, Strategic Framework for Action I (SFAI) anticipated the importance of instructional technology.  Galvanized by SFAI, the University extended its network to faculty offices and student dormitories while constructing the iLab and “high-tech” libraries for the health sciences and School of Law. Five years later, Strategic Framework for Action II (SFAII) set higher goals with the aim of “strengthening academic programs and services” and “promoting excellence in teaching and research” by transforming the University into a digital and networked institution (12).

To attain these goals, the Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) Committee has formulated A Strategic Framework for Teaching and Learning with Technology.  While SFAII  provides the framework for the plan, the CEO Forum on Education & Technology sets the standards.1 The CEO Forum has identified four “pillars” of instructional technology: Hardware, Connectivity, Digital Content, and Professional Development.  These pillars are interdependent.  For instance, most digital content is inaccessible without hardware, connectivity, and professional development, while hardware is of little use without digital content, professional development, and connectivity.  Therefore, this strategic plan proposes objectives in all four areas.

Fulfilling these objectives requires administrative support at the policy and budgetary levels.  Some objectives can be implemented quickly with strong leadership but no additional funds.  Others demand investments of money, time, and labor.  Certainly, the largest investment is in the University’s network.  However, without a reliable high-speed network, the University cannot support hardware, digital content, and professional development, or, for that matter, the technology goals of SFAII.  Moreover, not strengthening the network may cost more money in the long run.

Indeed, not implementing this plan could cost the University its reputation and reaccreditation.  In its most recent accreditation report, the evaluation team for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) observed that instructional technology at Howard was significantly underutilized (15).  More recently, in his letter to the TLT Committee, Provost Dr. Richard English, also noted the need to utilize instructional technology: “If we are to compete in the contemporary higher education arena, we must ensure that faculty members and other instructional personnel have available to them modern, integrated and operational instructional technology and services that can support their disciplinary expertise” (1).  Let us heed these warnings.

1 The CEO Forum is a coalition of executives from education and industry who have established national benchmarks for the use of instructional technology.

If fully implemented, A Strategic Framework for Teaching and Learning with Technology will empower the University to fulfill its mission, core values, and vision for the 21st Century:

MISSION

The mission of Howard University as a comprehensive, research-oriented, predominantly African-American university is to provide an educational experience of exceptional quality at reasonable cost to students of high academic potential. Particular emphasis is placed upon providing educational opportunities for African-American men and women, and for other historically disenfranchised groups. Furthermore, Howard University is dedicated to attracting, sustaining and developing a cadre of faculty who, through their teaching and research, are committed to producing distinguished and compassionate graduates who seek solutions to human and social problems in the United States and throughout the world.

CORE VALUES

First, this University must continue to be dedicated to an unequivocal search for truth; second, this University must continue to be a place where African Americans and others can come to study, free of oppression of any type, stripe or kind; third, this University must engender and nurture an environment that celebrates African-American culture in all its diversity; and fourth, this University must provide a caring, nurturing and respectful environment for all of the members of the Howard family: students, faculty, staff, trustees, alumni and administrators.

VISION

For 134 years, Howard University has been educating students and preparing them for important leadership positions and social responsibility in an increasingly complex world.

Howard University is a comprehensive research university, unique and irreplaceable, defined by its core values and the excellence of all its activities - its instruction, research and service - and by its enduring commitment to educating African-American youth, and other people of color in particular, for leadership and service to our nation and to the global community. Our vision for SFAII is that the University continue to elevate its contribution to the nation and its standing among America's top research universities. We are mindful that realization of this aspiration will require a sustainable University-wide focus, and disciplined allocation of resources.

PROCESS

In February 2004, Provost Dr. Richard English established the Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) Committee to work with the Office of the Provost and the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA) “to ensure excellence in teaching and learning and enhance technology-based undergraduate and graduate education at Howard University.”  Following the successful model developed by the TLT Group (an affiliate of the American Association for Higher Education), Howard’s TLT Committee consisted of 25 representatives drawn from the faculty of all twelve schools and colleges as well as the Faculty Senate, Howard University Student Association, University Libraries, Information Systems and Services (ISAS), Office of the Provost, and CETLA. In his letter to the Committee, Dr. English declared that their primary charge was “to formulate a strategic plan to improve technology-based teaching and learning and advise the Office of the Provost about instructional technology and programmatic issues that affect technology-based teaching and learning.”

CHRONOLOGY

February 2004             TLT Committee was appointed by the Provost.

March 2004                 TLT Committee began meeting, on site and online, to develop the strategic plan.

December 2004           TLT Committee submitted the strategic plan to the Provost.

February 2005             TLT Committee submitted a revised plan to the Provost.

 

GOALS OF A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY

All Howard University students, faculty, and staff should have access to hardware, connectivity, digital content, and training that are appropriate for a first-rank comprehensive research university.  Moreover, all University investments in instructional technology should strengthen academic programs and services, while promoting excellence in teaching, learning, and assessment.  To achieve this level of technology integration, the University should focus on the following 37 objectives in the four strategic areas identified in the CEO Forum’s STAR Chart:  Hardware, Connectivity, Digital Content, and Professional Development.

GOAL I. Equip faculty and students with the hardware they need to achieve academic excellence.

Classroom Technology

1.      By August 15, 2005, in every classroom building, faculty will have access to at least one well-maintained, up-to-date, and secure Smart Room or Smart Cart with minimum standard configurations.  Minimum equipment includes a computer with a DVD player, LCD projector, VCR, and a camera-based overhead projector. Enhancements beyond the minimal configurations will be determined by the teaching needs of the colleges or departments that oversee the rooms and carts.

2.      By August 15, 2005, Founders’ digital classroom (Room 116) will be upgraded to a Smart Room.

3.      As of July 1, 2005, trained faculty will receive priority in the process of scheduling Smart Rooms and reserving Smart Carts.

4.      As of August 15, 2005, all classrooms should have a projection screen and wireless access.

5.      By August 15, 2005, faculty will be able to reserve selected computer labs or laptop-ready Smart Rooms for hands-on instruction or proctored online testing of at least 25 students twice a semester.

Faculty Computers

6.      By August 15, 2005, all full-time faculty will have a working office computer with Internet connectivity on the first day of their contracts.

7.      By August 15, 2005, all part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants will have access to campus computers on a shared or individual basis.

Student Laptops

8.      As of July 1, 2005, any department, school, or college that proposes a laptop requirement for students will evaluate the proposed policy according to a common set of criteria (see Appendix II). 

GOAL II.  Ensure that faculty, students, staff, and visitors have access to a reliable
University network with enough bandwidth to meet their academic needs.

 Network Security and Capacity

9.      By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will have access to necessary resources and training to promote best practices that will prevent or minimize problems related to viruses, spam, and spyware.  In addition, user policies and automation will be in place to ensure compliance to these practices.

10.  By August 15, 2005, the network will have reliable back-up routers in major traffic areas on the main campus, including connectivity to the Divinity, Law, Beltsville, and Continuing Education campuses. 

11.  By August 15, 2005, the campus will have access at the switch level to fast Ethernet capacity to accommodate their academic needs.  Faculty who need more bandwidth will also have access to Internet 2.

Servers

12.  By August 15, 2005, if the server for the University’s email, library, course management platform, or enrollment management system fails, it will roll over to a stand-by server.

Technical Support

13.  By August 15, 2005, faculty, students, and staff will benefit from 24/7 network and help desk support, including reliable mobile communications.

Email Accounts

14.  By August 15, 2005, faculty and staff will have access to at least twice the amount of email storage space that they were allotted at the end of the Spring 2004 semester. 

15.  As of August 15, 2005, faculty will enter their preferred email address into Bison Web so that messages will be forwarded to them from their FacNet accounts.

16.  Starting on August 15, 2005, in order to register for classes, students will enter their preferred email address into Bison Web so that messages will be forwarded to them from their HowardU accounts.

Communication

17.  As of August 15, 2005, ISAS should post a comprehensive listing of all information technology services provided for the HU community.

GOAL III.  Provide convenient and subsidized access to the digital content faculty and
students need for academic purposes, while empowering them to use that content legally and ethically.

Software Licenses

  1. By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will be able to acquire the software they need for classes via campus site licenses without paying additional fees.
  2. By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will be able to download the software they need for classes via secure intranet or extranet links without paying additional fees.

Materials Conversion

  1. By August 15, 2005, the University will establish at least three University-funded studios that will convert faculty course materials into digital formats -- e.g., photos, videos, animation -- upon request. 
  2. By August 15, 2006, the University will digitize all new HU syllabi.
  3. By August 15, 2006, the University will digitize all new HU theses and dissertations.
  4. By August 15, 2006, the University will start establishing institutional archives of its digital documents.
  5. By August 15, 2006, 20% of course reserve materials maintained in the University Libraries will be in digital format.

Intellectual Property

25.  By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will know how to avoid plagiarism, when to seek copyright permission or licenses, and how to protect their own intellectual property.

Web-Based Platforms

26.  By August 15, 2005, all faculty will have access to Web-based templates for their courses, standardized on one platform (Blackboard).

Distance Education

27.  By August 15, 2006, using satellite campuses for evening or weekend courses, faculty will develop at least three hybrid degree programs that become revenue generators by June 30, 2008.

28. By August 1, 2007, each department will set benchmarks for offering distance-learning courses that meet accreditation standards.

29.  By August 1, 2008, the Provost will set University benchmarks for offering a distance-learning program.

GOAL IV.  Develop the faculty’s understanding and use of modern technologies
that enhance teaching, learning, assessment, and research.

 Training Opportunities 

  1. By January 1, 2005, faculty will have access to the technology training they need to achieve academic excellence, while staff will have access to the training they need to strengthen academic programs and services.  Students will continue to receive academic support and training to enhance academic achievement.
  2. By January 1, 2006, training for faculty will be available, both online and on site, at the four levels defined in the CEO Forum STAR Chart
  3. Beginning on January 1, 2005—following a train-the-trainer model—a community of skilled users will emerge in each department to help colleagues transform teaching and research via technology.

Training Requirements

  1. By May 15, 2005, at least 80% of full-time faculty will have completed at least one technology-related professional development activity such as a workshop, seminar, course, online tutorial, or independent study.
  2. Beginning on August 15, 2005, all faculty who wish to use a Smart Room will be certified in the proper use of Smart Room technology.
  3. By January 1, 2006, 80% of the faculty will know how to post computer-based course materials on the Web and link these materials to other digital resources; by August 15, 2006, all faculty will post at least a syllabus via a class website or course management platform (e.g., Blackboard) to enhance on-or off-campus courses.

Training Incentives

  1. As of  January 1, 2006, when needed, faculty will receive funding, release time, student technical support, or travel opportunities to master new technologies.
  2. As of August 15, 2005, faculty will receive recognition and/or monetary awards for effectively integrating technology into their courses and programs.    

I.       EQUIP FACULTY AND STUDENTS WITH THE HARDWARE THEY NEED TO ACHIEVE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE.

As the Middle States Commission on Higher Education recommends, Howard University faculty are increasingly integrating technology into the curriculum.  The University is providing resources for such integration, including Smart Rooms and office computers.  However, faculty have not been able to take full advantage of these resources.  Listed below are steps the University should take to maximize the use of hardware for instruction:

 Classroom Technology

1.      By August 15, 2005, in every classroom building, faculty will have access to at least one well-maintained, up-to-date, and secure Smart Room or Smart Cart with minimum standard configurations.  Minimum equipment includes a computer with a DVD player, LCD projector, VCR, and a camera-based overhead projector. Enhancements beyond the minimal configurations will be determined by the teaching needs of the colleges or departments that oversee the rooms and carts.

2.      By August 15, 2005, Founders’ digital classroom (Room 116) will be upgraded to a Smart Room.

3.      As of July 1, 2005, trained faculty will receive priority in the process of scheduling Smart Rooms and reserving Smart Carts.

Smart Rooms, while optimal for instruction, are a significant investment for the University.  Unfortunately, the University has been losing its investment due to theft, negligence, and lack of maintenance.  Experience has shown that a high level of security and maintenance is needed to protect equipment in Smart Rooms.  However, training is needed as well, both for preventing damage to the equipment and for ensuring security of the facilities.  Therefore, the individuals who currently schedule classes in the Smart Rooms should give priority to trained faculty.

Recently, the Provost designated ISAS as the unit responsible for the maintenance of the Smart Rooms; therefore, ISAS should receive a Smart Room budget with adequate resources on an annual basis.  On matters of physical security, ISAS should coordinate with Physical Facilities Management.  Meanwhile, CETLA will provide faculty training.  As for any new Smart Rooms, to avoid waste, ISAS should consult faculty and students before designing rooms in their area, since different units have different requirements.

4.      As of August 15, 2005, all classrooms should have a projection screen and wireless access.

As for other classrooms, the University resides in the bottom half of the CEO Forum’s STAR Chart because less than 50% of its instructional rooms are connected to the Internet.  Clearly, the University cannot afford to turn the majority of these classrooms into Smart Rooms.  Therefore, to reach the “Target Tech” level in the Star Chart, the University needs to find other means to ensure that “100% of the instructional rooms and administrative offices are connected to the Internet” (1).  Equipping all classrooms with a projection screen and at least one Internet connection for the instructor would move the University toward this goal.  A wireless connection is feasible and fulfills the SFAII directive to enhance campus-wide wireless capacity” (18).  Once the rooms are connected to the Internet, acquiring more Smart Carts would enable many more faculty to utilize it.  Indeed, Smart Carts are a cost-effective alternative to Smart Rooms.  They have much of the functionality of Smart Rooms, yet they are less expensive and easier to protect. 

5.      By August 15, 2005, faculty will be able to reserve selected computer labs or laptop-ready Smart Rooms for hands-on instruction or proctored online testing of at least 25 students twice a semester.

Although classes do not need computer classrooms for every class meeting, students as well as faculty occasionally need access to computers in the classroom for hands-on lessons and proctored online testing.  Allowing faculty to reserve computer labs or laptop-ready Smart Rooms for special events would help the University fulfill Objective 6 of SFAII:  “Provide access to appropriate computing resources for every Howard University student” ( 17).   The Deans and ISAS will identify selected computer labs that can be reserved by faculty on a day-to-day basis so that more faculty can access the technology when they need it.

Faculty Computers

6.      By August 15, 2005, all full-time faculty will have a working office computer with Internet connectivity on the first day of their contracts.

SFAI mandates that the University extend its fiber optics network “to the office of every full-time faculty member” via FacNet (21), and SFAII calls for an upgrade of FacNet equipment.  Yet some full-time faculty do not have working office computers with Internet connectivity, especially new faculty.  This is unacceptable.  Today faculty are required to use the online Bison Web system to monitor their class enrollments, obtain student information, and submit grades.  Other important administrative systems (e.g., grant administration, purchasing, physical facilities management) have moved online, and others are headed in that direction.  Increasingly, the University, school, colleges, and departments communicate exclusively by email, while scholarly life in most fields has also shifted to the Internet.  More and more library resources are provided and accessed online.  Internal and external collaborations are enabled by electronic communications.  Therefore, at the very least, all full-time faculty need their own computers to receive, store, submit, send, and process information in order to function as members of the several communities to which they belong.  In addition, ISAS should let faculty know how to obtain service through the University’s maintenance contract. 

As full-time faculty members, new tenure-track and tenured faculty particularly need their own FacNet computer or a temporary substitute (as well as training on University systems) as soon as their contracts begin.  Without their own computer and network access, tenure-line faculty cannot complete the instructional and administrative tasks required of them or participate fully in scholarly activities within and outside the University.   The absence of computers when they begin work is unnecessarily stressful and personally disappointing for our new tenure-line faculty.  It unfairly limits their participation in University life, teaching, and research.  To ensure that new tenure-line faculty receive their computers on time, the dean of every school or college should automatically forward a copy of the personnel recommendation form to ISAS when sending it to the Provost.  ISAS must receive this information at least 30 days before the contract begins.

7.      By August 15, 2005, all part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants will have access to campus computers on a shared or individual basis.

Part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants also need computers for many of their required instructional and administrative tasks.  Therefore, they should at least have ready access to computers on a shared basis.  Deans are responsible for this function in their school.  Working with ISAS, they can find many cost-effective ways to provide part-timers and TAs with computers, including recycling old FacNet machines and setting up computer carrels in convenient locations.

Student Laptops

8.      As of July 1, 2005, any department, school, or college that proposes a laptop requirement for students will evaluate the proposed policy according to a common set of criteria. 

Some units may choose to increase student access to computers by requiring students to purchase laptops; if so, they should evaluate the proposed laptop policy according to a common set of criteria. Units requiring students to purchase laptops have an obligation to plan for and support the best use of these laptops for instruction, training, and research.   Common criteria will encourage structured planning and implementation of such policies, while providing metrics for evaluation by the Provost, President, and Board of Trustees.  (See sample criteria in Appendix II.)

II.      ENSURE THAT FACULTY, STUDENTS, STAFF, AND VISITORS HAVE ACCESS TO A RELIABLE UNIVERSITY NETWORK WITH ENOUGH BANDWIDTH TO FULFILL THEIR ACADEMIC NEEDS.

Inadequate connectivity prevents Howard from “strengthening academic programs and services” and “promoting excellence in teaching” as envisioned in SFAII (12).  Moreover, it relegates Howard to the lower levels of the CEO Forum’s STAR Chart, a rank unbefitting a university that is striving to join the ranks of the top research universities.  Therefore, the University should take the following measures to improve connectivity:

 Network Security and Capacity

9.      By August 15, 2005,  faculty, staff, and students will have access to necessary resources and training to promote best practices that will prevent or minimize problems related to viruses, spam, and spyware.  In addition, user policies and automation will be in place to ensure compliance to these practices.

SFAII commits the University to fulfilling the following objectives: 

  • Join the Internet 2 Consortium.
  • Provide access to appropriate computing resources for every Howard University student.
  • Enhance campus-wide wireless capacity.
  • Recalibrate administrative and student support operations to the Internet.
  • Digitize essential information and build requisite infrastructure to facilitate asynchronous education.

All of these objectives depend upon a reliable network.  However, currently, the HU network is vulnerable to viruses, worms, and spyware:  As few as five infected computers can significantly damage the network, disrupting administrative and academic activity.  To make matters worse, it is impossible for ISAS to quickly and effectively deal with offending machines because of the network’s HUBs, which need to be replaced with switches that meet industry standards.   Therefore, ISAS should contract out to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) the task of filtering to mount the first layer of defense against viruses, spam, and spyware.  ISPs have access to the latest technology, so it makes sense to hire them to handle this ever-changing threat.  But the ISPs cannot handle it alone.  To provide the next layer of defense, ISAS would need to replace the HUBs and install  filtering software on switches/servers and other appropriate devices.  The third layer of defense would consist of software including anti-virus, firewall, and anti-spyware.  ISAS, CETLA, the Leadership Academy, and other units would make training available to ensure that faculty, staff, and students knew how to update this software and follow best practices to protect their computers.  This multilayer defense could significantly reduce network “downtime” for faculty, staff, and students.  That, in turn, would increase productivity.

10.  By August 15, 2005, the network will have reliable back-up routers in major traffic areas on the main campus, including connectivity to the Divinity, Law, Beltsville, and Continuing Education campuses. 

In addition to anti-virus, spam, and spyware protection, the network needs back-up routers so that when communication routes become congested or “go down,” technicians can quickly reroute network traffic.  In some instances, there is no adequate alternate route to handle network traffic; in others, no alternate route at all.  Without a back-up router in place, several hours may pass until the communication route is functional. 

11.  By August 15, 2005, the campus will have access at the switch level to   fast Ethernet capacity to accommodate their academic needs.  Faculty who need more bandwidth will also have access to Internet 2.

The limited capacity of the HU network hinders instruction.  Faculty, especially in the sciences, cannot transmit large video files or engage in multi-point videoconferencing over the HU network.  Therefore, ISAS should re-engineer the network to achieve state-of-the-art throughput bandwidth.  To do so, ISAS should work with all Howard University campuses.

Servers

12.  By August 15, 2005, if the server for the University’s email, library, course management platform, or enrollment management system fails, it will roll over to a stand-by server.

Even when the network is “up,” these servers may “go down,” wreaking havoc on and off campus.  Because they support courses, these are “mission-critical” servers.  Yet there are no stand-by servers that can take over at a moment’s notice so that users can continue to work while a technician fixes the primary servers.  For example, this academic year, the Blackboard course management server has ‘gone down” frequently, disrupting online instruction and even exams.  The downtime has also prevented students from accessing course materials in time to complete their homework.  These disruptions not only interfere with teaching, learning, and assessment, but also discourage faculty and students from using technology to enhance learning.  Once the course management, enrollment management, website, email, and library servers have stand-by-servers, ISAS should evaluate other campus servers to determine whether they also require stand-bys.

Technical Support

13.  By August 15, 2005, faculty, students, and staff will benefit from 24/7 network and help desk support, including reliable mobile communications.

Response time to network outages is slow because of the lack of 24/7 support.  Nearly all of ISAS’s support staff are scheduled to work 9 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday. Although many of these staff members work overtime (without financial compensation), there are almost no after-hours and weekend support staff.   To provide adequate technical support, ISAS should set up two shifts, daytime and evening.  Student assistants could reduce some initial personnel costs, but they are not a viable long-term solution because their access privileges and responsibilities differ greatly from those of full-time staff.  Thus, an investment in additional staff is unavoidable if the University seeks to join the ranks of this country’s leading research universities.  According to the CEO Forum’s Star Chart, 24/7 technical support is a necessity for universities that aspire to be “Target Tech” institutions.

Email Accounts

14.  By August 15, 2005, faculty and staff will have access to at least twice the amount of email storage space that they were allotted at the end of the Spring 2004 semester. 

Currently, faculty are limited to 10 MB of email space, even though many continually complain that 10 MB is insufficient for their work.  ISAS could provide additional space externally, if necessary, via a Network Area Storage device.

15.  As of August 15, 2005, faculty will enter their preferred email address into Bison Web so that messages will be forwarded to them from their FacNet accounts.

16.  Starting on August 15, 2005, in order to register for classes, students will enter their preferred email address into Bison Web so that messages will be forwarded to them from their HowardU accounts.

Many students and faculty do not receive important mail from the University because they use another email account and do not check their Howard account.  To improve campus communication, Enrollment Management should redesign Bison Web so that each time students register, they must update their email address in Bison Web before they can access the registration site.  At the same time, the Provost should require that faculty enter their preferred email address in Bison Web.

Communication

17.  As of August 15, 2005, ISAS should post a comprehensive listing of all information technology services provided for the HU community. 

The University is wasting money duplicating efforts and missing opportunities because of a lack of communication.  ISAS should continually update faculty, staff, and students about technology services, including Smart Room maintenance.  This information should be posted via a user-friendly website and email alerts.

III.    PROVIDE CONVENIENT AND SUBSIDIZED ACCESS TO THE DIGITAL CONTENT THAT FACULTY AND STUDENTS NEED FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES, WHILE EMPOWERING THEM TO USE THAT CONTENT LEGALLY AND ETHICALLY.

The CEO Forum’s report The Power of Digital Learning urges teachers to incorporate in their curriculum digital content such as CD-ROMs, websites, video, audio, simulations, databases, and course management systems.   According to the CEO Forum, in the hands of a skilled teacher, digital content promotes “collaborative, creative, and engaging” student learning (8).   SFAII also calls for digitization:  “Digitize essential information and build requisite infrastructure to facilitate asynchronous education (both on campus and at remote locations)” (18).  However, to integrate digital content into the curriculum and academic support units, the University must meet the following objectives:

Software Licenses

18.  By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will be able to acquire the software they need for classes via campus site licenses without paying additional fees.

Purchasing software via campus site licenses is the most cost-effective way for faculty, staff, and students to acquire the software they require. Site licenses are cheaper because software vendors provide volume discounts via site licenses.  These licenses should be purchased according to following procedure:

a.       The TLT Committee should compile a list of all software licenses currently purchased by the University, noting the version of the software, the number of licenses, and the expiration dates.

b.      The Committee should distribute this list to all academic units, soliciting additional recommendations regarding software packages or vendors.

c.       The Committee should submit a prioritized comprehensive list of software to ISAS, which ISAS will purchase under the most economical arrangements available (within the constraints of its budget).

d.      If academic units have identified discipline-specific software that does not fulfill a campus-wide need, the Committee should recommend that the appropriate deans or chairpersons purchase this software.

e.       ISAS should automatically renew site licenses when they expire and purchase updated versions of the software, unless otherwise instructed under “f” below.

f.        Annually, the Committee should review the University’s software requirements and submit revised purchase lists to ISAS and to the appropriate deans and chairpersons.

19.  By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will be able to download the software they need for classes via secure intranet or extranet links without paying additional fees.

The most efficient way to distribute software is via network downloads.  This approach guarantees that each user (faculty, staff member, or student) can always obtain the latest version of the software, and it greatly reduces the time required of ISAS or other support staff to effect the distribution. Users will request and receive the software without having to leave their offices or computer labs.  

Consequently, the TLT Committee should work with ISAS to ensure that sufficiently powerful and appropriately configured servers are deployed to house the master copies of software purchased under the University’s license agreements.  To verify that the latest versions are available, ISAS should periodically review the software housed on these servers.  Working closely with the Committee, ISAS should also develop easy-to-use, web-based procedures that will enable faculty and students to securely identify themselves, view brief descriptions of the software and system requirements, then download and install their software selections on their computers.

Materials Conversion

20.  By August 15, 2005, the University will establish at least three University-funded studios that will convert faculty course materials into digital formats –e.g., photos, videos, animation—upon request. 

Converting non-digital course materials (e.g., photos, audio tapes, videos, simulations) into appropriate digital formats requires technical skills and specialized scanning and conversion software and equipment. Three studios manned by a small cadre of specially trained technical support staff should carry out these functions.  ISAS should make these studios as accessible as possible to academic units on the satellite as well as main campuses.  Each studio would house workstations loaded with appropriate media conversion software and peripheral devices (e.g., scanners, microphones, cameras, analog-to-digital audio/video converters).

The studio staff would convert materials, not create them—at  least at the start. While the staff would be required to keep up with the latest conversion techniques, ISAS would be charged with making sure that the hardware and software in these studios were kept up to date.  Some of the technical support staff may be highly-skilled students employed on a part-time basis. However it is imperative that ISAS assign sufficient full-time and part-time staff to each studio so that each studio is open at least 20 hours each week, during hours most convenient for the University’s faculty and staff. 

In the long run, establishing a few studios would prove cost-effective. Training a few studio technicians or hiring skilled students would cost less than training the entire faculty.  Moreover, equipping a few strategically located studios would be much cheaper than installing the software and equipment in every school or college.

21.  By August 15, 2006, the University will digitize all new HU syllabi. 

Currently, at the beginning of each semester, faculty submit hard copies of their syllabi to their chairpersons for administrative review, reaccreditation, and archiving.  These hard copies are difficult to store, retrieve, and search.   One possible solution to this problem is a password-protected, web-based database.  Submitting syllabi to such a database would not only save administrators time and space, but also allow faculty to browse the database for teaching ideas and permit students to see previous course requirements before registering.   Instead of requesting hard copies each term, a chairperson could request that members of the department submit their current syllabi to this database by following a set of user-friendly instructions on CETLA’s website.  However, before implementation, the procedure must be successfully pilot-tested with non-expert faculty.  Moreover, CETLA must assist any faculty who have difficulty posting their syllabi.

22.  By August 15, 2006, the University will digitize all new HU theses and dissertations.

Most universities are committed to making their theses and dissertations available in digital formats because this format is easily accessed by colleagues and students within each university, and more importantly, by colleagues and students throughout the world-wide academic community.  For these reasons, the TLT Committee—in collaboration with the Dean of the Graduate School, other deans, and chairpersons—should recommend digital formats and templates for theses and dissertations. Students should be able to have their theses and dissertations converted to the specified digital formats in one of the University’s three materials conversion studios (see Objective 21 above).  Prior to implementation, the Provost should consult with the General Counsel regarding intellectual property issues.

23.  By August 15, 2006, the University will start establishing institutional archives of its digital documents.

Many universities have begun building digital institutional repositories.  At Howard, the General Counsel has advised the Deans and Directors on this subject, stressing the legal expediency of preserving and archiving University digital documents of all kinds.  Therefore, working with Deans and Chairpersons, the TLT Committee should identify the types of documents to be archived and recommend digital formats and templates for the archived files.  Then, working with ISAS, the Committee should specify the kind of on-line, near-line, and off-line mass storage systems required to store the archived files. Chairpersons and deans should be able to archive a unit’s documents into the required formats by submitting them to one of the three materials conversion studios. Upon converting the files, the studio staff will upload them to the appropriate archive system (see Objective 21 above).

24.  By August 15, 2006, 20% of course reserve materials maintained in the University Libraries will be in digital format.

Making course reserves available in digital formats ensures that the material will be readily accessible to students “anywhere, anytime.”  Therefore, instructors shall contribute to expanding the University Libraries’ current course reserves by submitting usable copies of printed articles, as well as digital objects. They will facilitate student access to such materials by embedding direct links within class websites or course management systems (e.g., Blackboard).

Intellectual Property

25.  By August 15, 2005, faculty, staff, and students will know how to avoid plagiarism, when to seek copyright permission or licenses, and how to protect their own intellectual property.

Intellectual property is a University's most valuable non-human asset. Therefore, it is imperative that faculty and students understand how to protect this asset. In addition, it is equally imperative that faculty and staff understand how to avoid infringing on other people's intellectual property because (a) it is the right thing to do and (b) it can prevent costly lawsuits as well as the serious damage to the University's reputation that such lawsuits may entail. 

For these reasons, intellectual property guidelines will be included in the orientation for all incoming students, faculty, and staff.  The University Libraries should post on their website intellectual property guidelines (including the Howard University Intellectual Property Policy) and incorporate them in their undergraduate library orientation.  Meanwhile, CETLA should offer workshops on intellectual property for all faculty, and the Graduate School should do the same for all students who are about to begin theses or dissertations.

Web-Based Platforms

26.  By August 15, 2005, all faculty will have access to web-based templates for their courses, standardized on one platform (Blackboard).

Having web-based templates for courses speeds up each faculty member’s production of course materials.  It is most efficient for faculty to begin with standard formats and then learn how to modify these formats as needed.   Therefore, the University should endeavor to maintain a single platform for all courses: Blackboard. Having two or three platforms doubles or triples the burden on faculty to learn how to use the extra platforms. Having a single platform also facilitates the sharing of course materials by colleagues.  It  facilitates student use as well because of the uniformity of access, navigation, and coursesite structure.

Nonetheless, faculty should still be permitted to create their own course websites for courses in addition to or in place of the standard platform, and the University should provide servers for these.  However, the University should provide development support and trouble-shooting only for one platform.  Specifically, ISAS should post course templates on Blackboard for all courses, maintain the servers, and provide student help desk support, while CETLA offers faculty online and hands-on instruction on how to use the templates.

Distance Education

27.  By August 15, 2006, using satellite campuses for evening or weekend courses, faculty will develop at least three hybrid degree programs that become revenue generators by June 30, 2008.

In recent years the most successful providers of educational opportunities for evening and weekend students have been the private, for-profit operations, such as the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, Strayer, and DeVry. While each offers programs in purely distance-learning formats, their largest enrollments are in hybrid programs that combine face-to-face classes with delivery of some course content via the Web.  To facilitate this combination, these highly successful operations have established multiple "campuses" throughout their regional and/or national markets.  As envisioned in SFAII, the University can establish a Metropolitan College that makes courses available to this evening/weekend market in the Washington, DC region by utilizing its satellite facilities (e.g., Silver Spring, Van Ness, and Beltsville) as well as its main campus.  Beyond this, serious consideration should be given to opening a satellite facility in Northern Virginia because Northern Virginia has proven to be a highly lucrative location for the for-profit operations.

To implement this plan, the TLT Committee should work with Howard University Continuing Education (HUCE) to identify at least three deans and chairpersons interested in offering hybrid degree programs.  Hybrid programs should be scheduled to serve the special needs/preferences of non-traditional students, i.e., older students interested in taking evening and weekend classes on a part-time basis.  HUCE should  provide online registration services for these programs.  In addition, HUCE should help faculty members convert some of their course materials into online formats.

28.  By August 1, 2007, each department will set benchmarks for offering distance-learning courses that meet accreditation standards.

Careful study of the rapid evolution of the most successful for-profit educational providers shows that most began by offering non-credit courses, but subsequently offered courses toward accredited degrees as quickly as possible. It makes sense for the University to capitalize on its initial base of daytime for-credit courses by encouraging each department to establish benchmarks for developing courses for non-traditional students who wish to pursue their education via distance-learning or hybrid formats.  This objective can be achieved through collaboration:

a.       The TLT Committee will work with chairpersons and deans to identify whatever standards, if any, have been specified by the appropriate accreditation bodies for distance-learning courses. 

b.      Chairpersons and deans, in consultation with the faculty, should identify an initial group of courses to be offered in purely distance-learning formats, after assessing the potential demand.

c.       If these courses are to be offered to traditional students (i.e., full-time students enrolled in degree programs), then CETLA should assist chairpersons and deans in formulating achievable benchmarks for delivering these courses.  On the other hand, if these courses are to be offered to non-traditional students (i.e., part-time students taking classes on evenings and weekends), then HUCE should help chairpersons and deans formulate benchmarks that will meet these students’ special needs and preferences. 

29.  By August 1, 2008, the Provost will set University benchmarks for offering a distance-learning program.

Howard’s undergraduate programs usually require students to take a substantial number of courses outside their major departments. Therefore, initially these students will not be able to complete all graduation requirements online.  However, once more required courses are offered in distance-learning formats, the University will be better prepared to launch purely distance-learning programs.  As departmental standards for distance learning and/or hybrid courses evolve, the Provost will be able to mandate acceptable benchmarks for developing accredited distance-learning programs. 

Regardless of whether these courses and programs are hybrid or wholly online, because of the time and difficulty involved in creating effective, high quality distance-learning courses, deans and chairpersons must assign administrative and technical assistants to support the development of such courses and programs.  Although CETLA will provide training for faculty who plan to teach distance-learning courses, deans and chairs still need to  relieve these faculty members from some responsibilities to allow them to dedicate sufficient time and effort to make their distance-learning projects work.  Faculty who are tasked to spearhead such endeavors should be given supplemental compensation as directors of programs or other financial and staff support.

Finally, the Howard University Distance Education Policy should be reviewed periodically by those involved in distance learning and updated by the TLT to reflect their experience. 

IV.     DEVELOP FACULTY’S UNDERSTANDING AND USE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGIES THAT ENHANCE TEACHING, LEARNING, ASSESSMENT, AND RESEARCH

CETLA’s Fall 2003 Faculty Survey suggests that less than a quarter of HU faculty have reached the skill level recommended by the CEO Forum on Technology & Education.  In addition, the Middle States site visit team noted in its report that instructional technology was underutilized at Howard (15).  Therefore, to meet national standards and to prepare for reaccreditation, the University needs to increase the number of faculty campus-wide who use technology for teaching and research.  Working with CETLA and other training units, Chairpersons and Deans can attain this goal by fulfilling the following objectives:

Training Opportunities 

30.  By January 1, 2005, faculty will have access to the technology training they need to achieve academic excellence, while staff will have access to the training they need to strengthen academic programs and services.  Students will continue to receive academic support and training to enhance academic achievement.

To increase the effective use of instructional technology, the University must, first of all, provide and publicize training opportunities.  The TLT Committee should review what is currently offered, produce a catalogue of providers, and make it available online.  Each unit should post its own catalogue online and provide a link so that it might be connected to the TLT’s comprehensive listing of HU training programs. 

31.  By January 1, 2006, training for faculty will be available, both online and on site, at the four levels defined in the CEO Forum’s STAR Chart

The University should offer training at different levels to ensure that “No Professor Is Left Behind.”  Such training addresses each person’s competency needs based on sound assessments.  CETLA, the Leadership Academy, and other training units should assess the level of technology skill among faculty and staff and provide the appropriate training in one of the four categories specified by the CEO Forum:  Early Tech, Developing Tech, Advanced Tech, and Target Tech.  Enough training opportunities should be available for faculty and staff to reach the “Target Tech” level within four years.   

32.  Beginning on January 1, 2005--following a train-the-trainer model--a community of skilled users will emerge in each department to help colleagues transform teaching and research via technology.

Successful adoption of a new technology requires access to immediate, knowledgeable, and reliable assistance.  The greater the amount of assistance available on an “as needed” basis, the more likely it is that faculty will attempt to change.  Research on “Change Models” has documented that adult learners require certain conditions for participation in innovative activities (Knowles).  Colleagues are one source of motivation.  Faculty  respect their colleagues and accept guidance from them.  However, the University must reward and recognize faculty with advanced skills who are willing to serve as models and provide leadership in both the unit and department (see Objective 38).

Training Requirements

33.  By May 15, 2005, at least 80% of full-time faculty will have completed at least one technology-related professional development activity such as a workshop, seminar, course, online tutorial, or independent study.

It is reasonable to expect Howard faculty to engage in technology training at least once a  year when the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and International Society for Technology in Education  are mandating far more technology training for students who are preparing to teach (see NETS).  This requirement will be enforced by the unit in consultation with CETLA and unit-based technology support.

34.  Beginning on August 15, 2005, all faculty who wish to use a Smart Room will be certified in the proper use of Smart Room technology.

CETLA and individual units will publicize a schedule of opportunities for Smart Room training and certification.  The school or college will certify faculty upon presentation of proof of certification through CETLA or other programs which identify measurable objectives that can be demonstrated by the learner. However, experienced users may “test out” to earn certification without undergoing formal training.

35.  By January 1, 2006, 80% of the faculty will know how to post computer-based course materials on the Web and link these materials to other digital resources; by August 15, 2006, all faculty will post at least a syllabus via a class website or course management platform (e.g., Blackboard) to enhance on-or off-campus courses. 

It is imperative that most faculty know how to post their materials to websites without requiring technical assistance. This process is quite simple, so most faculty should be able to master it fairly quickly. Furthermore, given the large size of Howard's faculty, paying enough technical staff to assist faculty with postings would be far more expensive than training faculty to perform these functions themselves. CETLA will provide the requisite training and assessment tools, while the deans provide oversight and incentives.  Deans might also consider the extra time required when they review faculty workloads.  In the long run, asking faculty to post most course materials instead of duplicating them will save the University money.

Training Incentives

36.  As of January 1, 2006, when needed, faculty will receive funding, release time, student technical support, or travel opportunities to master new technologies.

Learning to use instructional technology takes time and, often, money.  Therefore, schools and colleges should provide release time as well as registration fees and travel expenses for faculty to master new and emerging technologies if such training is not available on campus.  Funding could come from unfilled positions, TA support, the Fund for Academic Excellence, and external grants. To increase incentives, CETLA as well as schools and colleges will also (1) hire a cadre of student technical assistants for faculty support and hardware maintenance, (2) identify grants or fellowships to reward creative and innovative faculty who demonstrate an interest in instructional technology, and (3) sponsor field trips to CETLA, universities, and other technology-based resources and programs designed to motivate faculty to increase technology use.  In addition, Deans and Directors will ensure that staff receive appropriate opportunities for retooling to support the faculty.

37.  As of August 15, 2005, faculty will receive recognition and/or monetary awards for effectively integrating technology into their courses and programs.    

Research has documented that adult learners require certain conditions for participation in innovative activities (Knowles).  In addition to respect for their time, adults need to feel respected and valued.  Thus, incentives to validate professionalism help sustain faculty’s efforts long after the incentives are introduced.  In light of such research, CETLA, along with each school and college, will develop systematic ways to recognize faculty efforts to incorporate instructional technology.  Examples include Featured Teacher of the Month, featured faculty in the unit newsletter and other University publications, mailings to alumni, and a “Teaching with Technology” monetary award at a ceremony to showcase excellence and encourage other faculty.  The University should use existing facilities on campus, including a Faculty Showcase area on CETLA’s and the unit’s websites.  In addition, units may require evidence of successful completion of a technology-related workshop, course, or seminar each year as a requirement for merit pay.


  CONCLUSION

Fulfilling the preceding objectives requires administrative support at the policy and budgetary levels.  Some objectives demand funding now even though the University’s budget is limited.  Given such budget constraints, the University should first attempt to fund the recommendations listed below (in descending order of importance):

Budget Priorities

  1. Secure the HU network (Objective 9).
  2. Ensure that all full-time faculty have working computers with Internet connectivity by the first day of classes (Objectives 6).
  3. Ensure that mission-critical servers (e.g., Banner) will immediately roll over to stand-by servers (Objective 12).
  4. Provide 24/7 network and help desk support, including reliable mobile communications (Objective 13).
  5. Ensure that faculty, staff, and students have access to the technology training they need to achieve academic excellence (Objective 30).
  6. Ensure that faculty, staff, and students can acquire the software they need for classes via campus site licenses (Objective 18).
  7. Acquire, secure, and maintain Smart Rooms and Smart Carts for each classroom building (Objective 1).
  8. Increase the bandwidth of the HU network (Objective 11).
  9. Deploy reliable back-up routers in major network traffic areas (Objective 10).
  10. Double faculty and staff email storage space (Objective 14).

Other recommendations can be implemented immediately without additional funds.  We urge the University to implement the following measures without delay:

Policy Priorities

1.       Require students to update their email addresses in Bison Web each semester before registering for classes (Objective 16).

2.      Give trained faculty priority when scheduling Smart Rooms and reserving Smart Carts (Objective 3).

3.      Provide incentives for faculty to engage in technology training at least once a year (Objectives 33, 36, 37).

4.      Require faculty to maintain an up-to-date email address in Bison Web (Objective 15).

5.      Ensure that all faculty have access to templates for their courses in Blackboard (Objective 26).

6.      Ensure that faculty, staff, and students know how to avoid plagiarism, when to seek copyright permission or licenses, and how to protect their own intellectual property (Objective 25).

7.      Require all faculty to post at least a syllabus via a website or course management platform (Objective 36).

8.      Ask each department to set benchmarks for offering distance-learning courses that meet accreditation standards (Objective 29).

However, all of the recommendations in this report will contribute to the pursuit of excellence.  If implemented, they will empower Howard University to compete with other research universities in the 21st Century.
 

APPENDIX

APPENDIX I:  Strategic Framework for Action II

GOALS FOR THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION II

Today, we acknowledge four overarching goals for The Strategic Framework for Action II:

·         Strengthening Academic Programs and Services

·         Promoting Excellence in Teaching and Research

·         Increasing Private Support

·         Enhancing National and Community Service

STRENGTHENING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Objectives:

1.      Build the Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Center.

2.      Co-locate a federal research activity.

3.      Establish additional public and private strategic partnerships.

4.      Build a replacement facility for the School of Communications and provide an appropriate facility for the School of Education.

5.      Join the Internet2 Consortium.

6.      Provide access to appropriate computing resources for every Howard University student.

7.      ResNet2: Complete wiring of all residence halls for voice, data and video.

8.      Complete the Howard University Television campus network and convert WHUT-TV from analog to digital technology.

9.      Enhance campus-wide wireless capacity.

10.  Digitize essential information and build requisite infrastructure to facilitate asynchronous education.

11.  Recalibrate administrative and student support operations to the Internet.

12.  Build a comprehensive Health, Recreation and Student Life facility.

13.  Build capacity for 1,000 additional parking spaces.

In the world of higher education today, every institution is challenged to provide high quality learning communities for their students that reflect the vast explosion of knowledge, the interconnectedness of the traditional academic disciplines, and the integration of teaching and research that are the hallmarks of the digital age.

PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AND RESEARCH

14.  Restructure the Office of Research Administration.

15.  Develop a coherent incentive system for faculty research.

16.  Strengthen the research professorship track.

17.  Increase the number of endowed chairs.

18.  Increase the number and amount of graduate student stipends.

19.  Create new interdisciplinary research groups.

20.  Encourage the faculty to pursue memberships in National Academies based on faculty honors and achievements in research, publications and pedagogy. Recognize such memberships publicly.

21.  Upgrade FacNet equipment.

22.  Develop collaborations and establish stronger academic linkages and professional peer interactions with other leading universities and colleges.

23.  Establish a Teaching and Learning Center.

24.  Develop a plan for the Howard University North Campus in Beltsville, Maryland.

 

INCREASING PRIVATE SUPPORT

25.  Initiate a major Capital Campaign during Fiscal Year 2002.

ENHANCING NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

26.  Continue to invest in Howard University Hospital’s capacity to provide area residents with high quality healthcare, independent of their ability to pay.

27.  Develop a new practice plan for clinical faculty in the College of Medicine.

28.  Create the Howard University Center for Public Service.

29.  Develop Phase 2 of the LeDroit Park Initiative.

30.  Build a National Digital Network to support urban education.

31.  Restructure Continuing Education to create the Howard University Metropolitan College.


  APPENDIX II :  Sample Criteria for Student Laptop Policies

The Board of Trustees has allowed Schools and Colleges to adopt a policy requiring all entering students to purchase laptops or tablets with specifications set by the Schools or Colleges.  Prior to implementation, such a policy must be adopted by the faculty and forwarded to the Provost for approval.  In addition, the TLT Committee recommends that each School or College evaluate all proposed laptop/tablet policies against a published set of criteria, such as the sample criteria listed below:

PREPARATION

  1. Students must be represented in any School or College group charged with drafting a laptop policy proposal.
  2. The proposal must describe how the laptops will be used in instruction and learning.
TRAINING
  1. The proposal must include a plan to train faculty to use the laptops in classes.
  2. The proposal must include a plan to train students in their use.
ETHICS
  1. The School or College must have a posted Standard of Conduct for use of computers and the University network. 
  2. Training must include training in the Standards of Conduct.
NETWORKING
  1. All laptops/tablets must have up-to-date anti-virus protection using University- supported software.
  2. All laptops should be able to attach to the University network by wireless, according to a standard set by a University-wide technical committee that includes faculty; this standard should be implemented in common areas such as libraries and dormitories.
  3. All classrooms and common areas (laboratories/reading rooms, etc.) of the School or College should be equipped with wireless networking.  In classrooms and laboratories, instructors should be able to turn the network on or off.
  4. All offices, classrooms, and common areas of the School or College should have at least one Ethernet connection to the University network.
HARDWARE
  1. The University should set a minimum standard for laptops or tablets.
  2. Variations from this standard should be justified with respect to the needs of the School or College.
  3. Whenever possible, agreements with vendors should be made to minimize the cost to students.  Schools and Colleges should make every effort to minimize cost consistent with educational requirements.
  4. All laptops/tablets must have three-year maintenance support.
SOFTWARE
  1. Schools and Colleges should make maximum use of University software site licenses.
  2. Schools and Colleges should give careful consideration to purchasing and supporting additional site licenses and expanding currently owned site licenses to include student computers.
COORDINATOR
  1. Each School or College should appoint a Laptop Coordinator who will be the single point of contact.

APPENDIX III:Teaching, Learning, and Technology Committee

Redd, Teresa, Chair.  Associate Professor of English and Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA)
Halpern, Joshua
, Hardware Subcommittee Chair.  Professor of Chemistry and Technology Committee Chair, College of Arts & Sciences
Moxley, Richard, Connectivity Subcommittee Chair.  Information Systems Administrator, Bookstore
Beasley, Roy, Digital Content Subcommittee Chair.  Information Technology Program Manager and Technology Committee Chair, Continuing Education
Collins, Jacob, Professional Development Subcommittee Chair.  Associate Professor of Curriculum & Instruction, Assistant Dean, and Technology Committee Chair, School of Education
Abu-Bader, Soleman.  Assistant Professor, School of Social Work  
Berry, Gregory.  Legal Writing Instructor, School of Law 
Blakemore, Daniel.  President Emeritus of the Howard University Student Association
Burge, Legand.  Assistant Professor of Systems & Computer Science and Technology Committee Chair, College of Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Sciences
Coomes, Marguerite
.  Associate Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, College of Medicine   
DeGannes, Christopher.  Assistant Professor, College of Medicine  
Gomes, Ralph.  Professor of Sociology, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Gonzalez, Lamont
.  Lecturer of Radio, TV, & Film, School of Communication
Hailemeskel, Bisrat.  Associate Professor of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences  
Jamar, Steven.  Professor and Associate Director of the Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice, School of Law (replaced G. Berry in October 2004)
Leathers, Kim.  Associate Director of Information and Services Clearinghouse and Director of Continuing Education, School of Divinity
Mekkawi, Mohammed.  Director of University Libraries
Mobolurin, Ayodele.  Associate Professor of Information Systems and Technology Committee Chair, School of Business
Moore, Charles.  Vice Provost and Interim CIO of Information Systems and Services 
Pass, Barry.  Associate Professor and Technology Committee Chair, College of Dentistry
Patterson, Wayne.  Professor of Computer Science, Senior Fellow for International Programs and Program Review in the Graduate School, and Interim Associate Vice Provost for Research Reese, Latanya.  President of the Graduate Student Council (on leave)
Sola, Peter.  Professor and Chair of Educational Administration & Policy, School of Education and Faculty Senate
Tsomondo, Thorell.  Associate Professor of English, College of Arts & Sciences 
Walker, Clint.  Director of User Support Services, Information Systems & Administration
Wallace, Vancito.  Senior Technology Officer, Office of the Provost

STAFF

Bethea, Gloria, Administrative Secretary, CETLA
Appiah, Frederick, Information Systems Manager, CETLA

WORKS CITED

CETLA’s Fall 2003 Faculty Survey. 28 Nov. 2004 <http://www.surveymonkey.com/DisplaySummary.asp?SID=275498&U=27549825129>.

CEO Forum on Education & Technology.  “Background.” 28 Nov. 2004 <http://www.ceoforum.org/background.html>.

___.  The Power of Digital Learning:  Integrating Digital Content.  Summer 2000.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report3.pdf>.

___.  STAR Chart.  Summer 2000. 28 Nov. 2004  <http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/star3.pdf >.

English, Richard. Letter to the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Committee.  11 Feb. 2004.

Howard University Distance Education Policy.  18 May 2000.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://www.provost.howard.edu/provost/DLPolicy.pdf>.

Howard University Intellectual Property Policy.  23 September 1993. 

Howard University Mission Statement.  1999.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://www.founders.howard.edu/presidentReports/Mission.htm>.

Knowles, Malcolm S.  The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.  Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1990.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education Evaluation Team.  Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, and Students of Howard University.  1999.

National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS).  International Society for Technology in Education and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.  2000-2004.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html>. 

Swygert, H. Patrick.  Strategic Framework for Action I.  28 Sept. 1996.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://www2.howard.edu/president/strategicframework/default.asp>.

Swygert, H. Patrick.  Strategic Framework for Action II.  July 2001.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://www2.howard.edu/president/sfa2/>.

Teaching, Learning, and Technology Group.  3 Nov. 2004.  28 Nov. 2004 <http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/TLTR/Characteristics.htm>.

 

© 2003 Howard University, all rights reserved.
HOWARD UNIVERSITY, i-lab, suite 244, Washington, DC 20059
Phone: 202-806-0870 - TLT Contacts - WWW Disclaimer - Webmaster